Then how do we feed 7 billion people? Commercial farming is very old you know, we're talking thousands of years that crops have raised as a business, the food sold to those who do other work in the society besides farming.

I'm not sure what the criteria for "large scale commercial" might be, by today's standards, possibly 1000s of acres? I know there's at least one landowner planning such a thing, but it is only in the planning stages at this point (theoretical).

Personally, I think it will take a variety of methods plus an interest in reducing population to sustainable levels through family planning and natural attrition.

7 billion people are probably not sustainable by any method of food-growing, though some extreme optimists think the current population could be sustained by permaculture or Biointensive or similar methods if there were redistribution of land. Personally, I am not such an optimist.

I thought Ludi explained it rather well. What part didn't you understand?

I was asking you. Permaculture is a new word & means different things to different people.

Ludi wrote:I'm not convinced "why" is a reasonable question

Why is always a reasonable question as long as it's asking genuinely.

Ludi wrote:if a logical consequence is that a large-scale portion of humanity will not be fed with permaculture techniques. "What else" might be a better question, as in, what other methods should we employ in addition to permaculture to feed the large-scale portion of humanity which will not be fed with permaculture.

I still don't see why permaculture inherently cannot be made large scale.

If one man/woman can manage a food forest of a few acres why can't 100 people manage a food forest of a few hundred acres? I mean sure it would take some organization but what worthwhile endeavor doesn't?

It's nice to see some acknowledgment though that permaculture is best supplemented with other techniques.

Narz wrote:If one man/woman can manage a food forest of a few acres why can't 100 people manage a food forest of a few hundred acres? I mean sure it would take some organization but what worthwhile endeavor doesn't?

I'm sure it could, if there was enough buy-in on the concept AND long-term commitments. That's where things always seem to get derailed--the human element. When I see what goes on here at the micro level in the suburbs with new McMansionistas moving in and tearing up raspberries on the border to put in arbor vitae screens, it makes it hard for me to conceive of true long-term earth stewardship with chestnuts and other trees that take decades to mature. Permaculture really requires more of a conservationist mindset. You're not conserving what's there (outside of zone 5), you're going to build something new and then conserve what you build. There's already some of that mentality with old orchards and vinyards that have been passed down for generations. That's kind of what everybody would have to think about their land, that it is like a fragile heirloom, not that the land is just a commodity to sell off to real estate speculators.

I'm sure it could, if there was enough buy-in on the concept AND long-term commitments. That's where things always seem to get derailed--the human element. When I see what goes on here at the micro level in the suburbs with new McMansionistas moving in and tearing up raspberries on the border to put in arbor vitae screens, it makes it hard for me to conceive of true long-term earth stewardship with chestnuts and other trees that take decades to mature. Permaculture really requires more of a conservationist mindset. You're not conserving what's there (outside of zone 5), you're going to build something new and then conserve what you build. There's already some of that mentality with old orchards and vinyards that have been passed down for generations. That's kind of what everybody would have to think about their land, that it is like a fragile heirloom, not that the land is just a commodity to sell off to real estate speculators.

I've been having a good time with my daughter going over my land and planning what to plant and where. We are going to be putting in an orchard in the spring. I have also been surveying our woodlands, and figuring out what to harvest in order to encourage long term sustainable maple sugar production as well as a revitalized old growth forest. It gives me a good feeling that I am starting something that will very likely benefit my children and future generations - and that both my kids are interested in seeing it succeed.

Narz wrote:I still don't see why permaculture inherently cannot be made large scale.

If one man/woman can manage a food forest of a few acres why can't 100 people manage a food forest of a few hundred acres?

Sure it could, as part of a community endeavor, with the problems mentioned by mos. But 100 people on a few hundred acres isn't a "large scale commercial" endeavor by today's standards in which farms measure in the 1000s of acres farmed by a couple guys on giant tractors.

Not being a tecno-cornucopian, about the only way I can see that it would be possible for people to take a significant amount of CO2 out of the atmosphere is to stop cutting trees and start reforesting areas that were once forested. In order for these areas to still produce food the way kill both birds with the same stone is the permaculture/food forest route.

Of course the effort would have to be massive.

Of course it will never happen.

<---working on his own little food forest.

"The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences…"Sir Winston Churchill

Beliefs are what people fall back on when the facts make them uncomfortable.

I think it would pay permies and doubters to have a close look at agriculture in parts of Asia, Latin America, Africa and old Europe. Places where it has always been normal to eat locally in season.Here in the Philippines 98% of my food comes from the valleys around where I live and the same goes for everyone else around here (almost). It is possible to have a much more balanced urban/ agricultural/ wild lands system on a much more localised platform and it is already happening in some places without having to be construed to the enth degree; but out of necessity, practicality and affordability. Living in the shadow of Pinatubo I can see new rainforest growing in many places which were previously rock. I can see everyday people are getting smarter in provincial Asia. Doing things better, being frugal but creative. One of the first traps to get out of and perhaps the hardest is the obsession with $$$.

That's the thing. Solutions which are not implemented aren't much help.

When people learn about permaculture often the first thing they'll ask is "Can it feed 7 billion people?" and when given the honest answer "probably not" they blow it off and that's the end of their interest and involvement. A smaller number of people are so attracted to the concepts they immediately start to implement them in their own household.

I know one aged gentleman who lives from a 4 square meter garden and a rotational sprout system, spends about $10 a week on inputs. According to him the reason to depopulate is to leave something for nature; despite the fact we could easily feed 60 billion people if that is all we wanted to do.

SeaGypsy wrote: According to him the reason to depopulate is to leave something for nature; despite the fact we could easily feed 60 billion people if that is all we wanted to do.

One of the principles of permaculture is to return the majority of land to wild nature. To do so in many places requires lowering the population through birth control and attrition.

Reference: "Permaculture: a designers manual" by Bill Mollison

We actually don't know how much of the Earth's biomass can be turned into humans and the Earth's life systems continue to function. Living as we presently do, the waste sinks are overloaded with 7 billion and life systems are shutting down.

Last edited by Ludi on Sat 29 Jan 2011, 10:31:30, edited 1 time in total.

Why not eat insects? They can be farmed cheaply and are probably the highest EROEI form of protein available. It's likely that they will thrive in a hot-house world, and can easily be turned into some form of dry biscuit.

People here have doubts as to the ability for industrial nations to radically overhaul their food supply upon realization of an impending famine. Personally, i'm slightly more optimistic, but scientists need to sound the call.